Agreement puzzle

Yvon Pierre NDONGO IBARA

Abstract This paper demonstrates that the analysis of agreement raises a number of
contradictions concerning the different branches of linguistics on one the hand, and, on the
other linguistic explanation based on other social sciences (sociolinguistics, anthropology). It
can be claimed that agreement can be taken as a puzzle that gives rise to syntax, semantics,
morphology, sociolinguistics and anthropology. Accordingly, agreement should not be
considered as only a linguistic issue, but also a cultural matter.

Key words: agreement, puzzle, form, meaning, nullity.

Introduction

In the history of linguistics, as in many other social sciences, there are many rebounds on a
number of issues due to the evolution of approaches. This paper tackles one of those
rebounding issues, notably agreement. There are schools of thought that claim that agreement
is a syntactic matter (Chomsky, Radford) while others dispute that assertion and assume that
agreement is a semantic issue. In this respect, basing upon these two approaches, we wonder
which one meets explanatory adequacy concerning that language fact. In addition, can we
only base the explanation of all aspects of agreement on purely theoretical linguistics? In
other words, can theoretical linguistics sufficiently explain all agreement aspects?.
Accordingly, we are going to examine both syntactic and semantic considerations on
agreement; then show their limits and finally postulate for another way to analyse agreement
in natural languages.

1- Form, meaning and agreement

G.G. Corbett (2003:10) draws a particular attention on the terminology related to agreement
notably ‘controller’ (the element determining agreement), ‘target’ (the element the form of
which is the result of agreement), ‘domain’ (the agreement scope), ‘features’ (aspects that
generate agreement), and condition (terms for agreement application).Yet, in the Chomskyan
theoretical framework (Chomsky 1998, 1999, 2001; Radford 2004), the terms ‘probe’ and
‘goal’ are used instead of ‘controller’ and ‘target’. Of interest is the fact that either word refers
to the same content. In fact, it appears that agreement is identical to the family or the
professional relationship wherein either the blood or the job is a connector that establishes the
relation between different people. In the same vein, the agreement feature can be compared to
the advantage of the right of inheritance that benefits to any member of the family. In this
effect, if the law has set up conditions and boundaries for that right, in linguistics, on the
contrary, there are different ways to approach that issue.
On the one hand, there are arguments that support that the form of the probe depends
on the grammatical properties of the goal. We focus on the ‘form’ of the probe as an impetus
for agreement generation. Let us take (1) as the starting point.

(1) a-angoo ba andombi badzaa bawoa wa (Embosi)

Pl-mother Pl-of pl-intellectuals 3PL-be-Past 3PL-listen-Past him
‘The members of the jury who were listening to him’
 (Bisi Ambosi Newsletter, 2009:1)
b- les petits enfants ont mangé du poulet (French)
Def-PL small-PL-Masc child-PL-Masc 3PL-have eat-participle some chicken
‘The small children have eaten chicken’

c- A young beautiful girl sings in the open (English)

These examples illustrate three language families Germanic, Latin and Bantu. As things
stand, it appears that in the first two language families, the agreement is stronger than in the
last family concerning mainly the agreement within the nominal group. The head noun
features (number or gender) dominate the agreement within the nominal in (1a, 1b) examples.
In this respect, it is ascribed that:
“the domain of agreement is often coexistent with head-dependent groupings and
agreement can be described based on head-dependent structures.”(Elke Teich, s.a.:
43).
In fact, the head noun is the ‘goal’ and the specifiers are the ‘probe’. Accordingly, there are
two keys to implement that process, viz: ‘copying operation’ and ‘matching relation’. Radford
explains the former as follows:
“if α is valued for some features [F] and β is unvalued for [F] and if β agrees with α,
the feature-value for [F] on α is copied onto β” (2004: 285).
And he adds the following for the latter “α and β match in respect of some feature [F]
either if both have the same value for [F] or if one is valued for [F] the other unvalued for [F]-
but not if they have different values for [F].” (Radford, 2004: 289)
In practice, either the copying operation or the matching relation points out that the
specifiers have bar features and a neuter form when they enter the derivation, i.e., before they
are transferred to PF to have their form as the consequence of their collocation with a given
head. That is what Radford termed unvalued. In (1a), in Embosi language, here is how the
agreement is displayed.
2 a- [ngoo [ ya [andombi [-dzaa [-woa wa]]] underlying structure
Mother of PL-intellectual Be Listen him

b-[1ngoo [1ya[1andombi[1-dzaa[1-woa wa]]] before the spellout

c-[àngoo [ba[1andombi[ba-dzaa[ba woa wa]]] the spellout

In Embɔsi language, there is one agreement feature, number, that is shared by words that are
within Agr scope. Any distortion to this process will generate agrammatical strings of words
or oddness. In fact, the specifiers of the head must share the same features. Accordingly, at
the level we dubbed before the spellout, we observe the process that shows how the number
feature of the head noun is spread over the specifier that lacks it so as there be a feature
valuation and a feature matching.
However, if Embɔsi has only the feature Number, French, on the contrary, has both
gender and number features. In this respect, since the head noun in (1b) is masculine and
plural, so will be its immediate specifier, i.e., Adj. Equally interesting is the fact that in either
French or Embɔsi, the form of the N-specifiers drastically depends on the feature of the core
word. In (1c), the English language shows a case of a weakly morphological agreement
instance since there is no overt agreement between the head noun and one of its specifiers,
although there is an agreement between a singular subject and the predicate following it. .
 In the light of example (2), it appears that the head noun is the generator of agreement
within an NP. Yet, there are works in the literature (among many others Ndongo Ibara 2009,
Pollard and Sag 1994) that demonstrate the opposite viewpoint. In this connection, Elke Teich
writes
“While for syntactic agreement the domains of agreement are often coexistent with
head-dependent domains, it is not necessary the case that the head is the determinant
of concord, nor is it true that it is one set of features that is shared across all the
component part” (199-, p.43)
In fact, in Ndongo Ibara (2009), it transpires that the head noun can lose the c-
command of some its specifiers when there is a quantifier determiner within an NP structure.
To quote Ndongo Ibara.
But, if a noun phrase is made of a prenominal determiner + a noun + a post-nominal
determiner, the demonstrative ‘this’ is translated in Embɔsi differently. This means
that the post-nominal determiner does not agree with the noun but with the prenominal
determiner. Accordingly, the head noun loses its power of dominance upon the
determiner. The prenominal determiners are so strong that they make the head lose the
c-command of the post-nominal which are now governed by the prenominal (2009,
p.165)
The following examples show the contrast between the N that c-commands its Spec
and the N that does not c-command its Spec.
(3) a) ilàngí mí
Cl4-bottle-PL Cl4-Pl-Dem
Bottles these ‘these bottles’

b- ndámbí yà ilàngí yé
Cl5-some of Cl4-bottle-Pl Cl5-these ‘some of these bottles’

c) bwárí bu
Cl2-canoe-Sg Cl2-this-Sg ‘this canoe’

d- mwánà bwárí wó
Cl1-small-Sg Cl2-canoe-Sg Cl1-this-Sg ‘this small canoe’

In the examples (3), we observe that the demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ has a different target. In
the examples (3a,c), the demonstrative inherits its features from the head noun, while in (3b,d)
examples, it is the specifier which is higher than the head noun that blocks the spreading of
the head noun feature: hence the post nominal agrees with the prenominal specifier. However,
it is important to claim that what is true of one language is not automatically true of all
languages that are linguistically in the same family. What we want to mean is that the shift of
the agreement controller observed in Embɔsi must, in no case, be considered as a general
feature instanced by all Bantu languages. Consider examples from Lingala and Kikongo
languages.
(4) a- Lingala
a.1 milangi miyè
bottles these ‘these bottles’
a.2 mwa molangi oyo
some bottle this ‘This small bottle’
 b- Kikongo
b.1 mbwata yai
bottle this ‘This bottle’
b.2 mbwata ya fyoti yai
bottle that small this ‘this small bottle’

It appears that either in Lingala or Kikongo when the noun is preceded or followed by
determiners, the goal remains the head noun. As such, the head noun c-command its different
determiners that bear its features.
Moreover, Pollard and Sag (1994) had illustrated a case of goal shift based on German
NP. They argued that there are two cases of agreement within a German NP. Firstly, the
agreement can be attributable to the head noun when there is no adjective in this structure.
Then when there is an adjective, its form is determinant for the choice of which determiner
can fit in this position. In fact, basing on their forms, adjectives have strong and weak forms.
These forms are key for the selection of different determiners for noun collocation. Consider
the following.
(5) a- kluge Mädchen
b- ein kluge
c- das kluge

This analysis of the agreement shows that the form of the head noun, the adjective or
prenominal determiners can predict which feature the other members of the grouping will
share. But, can we admit that the form of the adjective, the noun or the prenominal determiner
is sufficiently adequate to preclude odd agreement? Consider:

(6) a-Measles is the cause of a dozen of children’s death here.

b-The gallows seems her destiny.
c-Le puits est rempli d’eau ‘the well is full of water’

The examples in (6) demonstrate that the form cannot alone render plausible the explanation
of agreement. In fact, the agreement in these examples is not attributable to the form, the spell
out of the word, but rather to its semantic interpretation.
In the following, we are going to see how this agreement process takes place cross
linguistically. Examples are taken from Embosi, French, Wolof, and English.
(7) Embosi
a-Oyii ma bari mbi owé/awé.
Many of people indeed it died/they died
‘A great number of people died indeed.’

b-Eduu ya bana epwé/apwé li nga la kwéli.

Group of child it/they.arrive at me at night
‘A group of children came to my house at night.’

c-Mwala ma anyama oléi/aléi pé.

Group of animal it/they pass there
‘A group of animal passed there.’

d- bana ba ataati bangi badzwa ko

cl.2Children cl.2who cl.2small cl.2those cl.2.3rd.pers pl.go forest
‘Those small children are going to the forest’
Examples from Embosi demonstrate that there are two instances of agreement aspects. In the
first case, the goal of agreement is the head noun. Accordingly, either the determiners or the
predicate bear grammatical properties that are attributable to the head noun. The example (7d)
is a true illustration. The second case, however, highlights a goal shift. To this effect, in the
examples (7a, 7b, 7c) we observe that the same predicate has different prefixes. This lack of
constancy in prefix stands for the different interpretations that some kinds of noun phrases
denote. These different interpretations are the reflection of the correlation between words and
the context of their occurrence. These Embosi examples point out that there are constant
choices when we are in front of a number of noun phrases that involve singular and plural
words. In these cases, the agreement is free, that is, the verb can agree with the highest noun
word in the noun phrase which is singular or the head noun which is plural. In front of these
examples, a great number of Embosi speakers who look like language purist should show
preference for the case where the agreement of the verb is carried out with the singular word
in the noun phrase. The above argumentation can also hold for French.
(8)
a-Un groupe/dizaine/ centaine des enfants est/sont arrivés au festival.
‘A group/dozen/hundred of children come to the festival’

b- Les plus grands opposants font des critiques contre le gouvernement.

‘The most giant opponents critise the government’

c- Ce sont les enfants de Paul.

It are the children of Paul
‘It’s Paul’s children’

d- C’est les enfants de Paul

It is the children of Paul
‘It’s Paul’s children’

In French, for example, instead of agreeing with the highest NP in its domain, the verb
can agree with the closest NP in its domain. This agreement shift is mainly due to the
intentions of the speaker. Accordingly, the French examples in (8a) can have a plural form
since the NPs that immediately occur before the verbs are plural.
Edouard Ngamountsika (2007) provides a scrutiny of one of these issues concerning
the French expression: ‘ce+ être+ N.PL or N.SG’. It transpires from Ngamountsika’s work
that there is no tacit agreement among linguists on that issue. He writes: “L’accord de c’est et
ce sont a divisé les grammairiens au cours du siècle passé”. In this respect, there are some
authors (Le Goffic 1993, W. von Wartburg and P. Zumthor 1958) who suggest that the
agreement of the copular be within this kind of construal is a result of the link between the
copular ‘be’ and the NP that immediately follows. To quote Ngamountsika again: “Par contre
la forme plurielle, selon le même auteur, est généralement considéré comme préférable dans
un registre soigné, la forme au singulier passant alors pour familière ou relâchée.” When it
happens to make a choice between the singular and plural form of the copular ‘be’, it appears
that there is some aesthetic preference for the plural form. In fact, we can immediately
question the reason that underlies this choice to know whether it is grammatically or
culturally based. In this connection, we find Le Goffic’s argument not quite convincing
because his justification is based on a sociolinguistic ground where language is viewed as a
bipolar fact with a High and a low variety each of which has a specific function. If we follow
that tendency, we will consider language as did traditional grammarians of Greek or Latin era
who considered great author’s masterpieces as proofs perfection in language. As such, what
great authors had written was taken as more elegant, more correct, more perfect hence
deserved admiration. In the words of David Crystal (1971: 53) “Only the best authors, the
literary giants, were to be studied as examples of what a language was like”.
In theoretical linguistics, such a distinction is pointless since language is taken as a
whole, and it is considered as instances of utterances that are produced by the speaker-hearer
of a given language. Accordingly, basing the choice of plurality or singularity of the copular
‘be’ on flowery language or illiterate language does not sound sufficient. Le Goffic (1993)
also admits that the expression ‘Ce+ être’ seems to be invariable; he writes : “C’est tend à
devenir une formule invariable : sa fixation au présent s’explique par son caractère
métalinguistique : c’est le signe d’une opération d’identification faite par le locuteur”.
Once again, Le Goffic refers to metalanguage to explain his argumentation. Here, he thinks
that the spellout of that expression is dependent upon the speaker’s will. In fact, the speaker’s
decision should also derive from a linguistic parameter that predicts grammaticality from
oddness. This choice is not deliberate; it is rather constrained by the language grammar.
Nothing in language production is done vacuously or at random. In this connection, it appears
that there should be a double explanation accounting for the agreement and invariability of the
French expression made of ‘ce’ and the copular ‘be’:
(9)
a. “ce” can be considered as the English expletive pronoun ‘it’;
b- “ce” can be taken as the a collective noun

In the first case, the pronoun ‘ce’ is viewed as the logical subject of the copular ‘be’ whilst in
the second one, the pronoun ‘ce’ is not the subject of the copular ‘be’ which has been drawn
from its logical position after the plural subject. The former reference can justify the singular
form of the copular ‘be’ which has a backward reference to pick up its content. However, in
the second case, there is a real problem since the form of ‘ce’ is still singular while the form
of the copular ‘be’ is plural. If we compare the two “ce” in front of the copular, there is no
difference. It is therefore admitted that in the second case ‘ce’ is not the logical subject of the
plural form, the question that immediately comes up is to know why the French language does
not make use of the plural form of ‘ce’ which is ‘ces’. It appears that the choice of the plural
form ‘ces’ will become a phonetic flaw and a grammatical oddness. In effect, for the latter
case, the French demonstrative pronoun ‘ces’ has not the potentialities to stand as the subject
of a predicate, it strongly requires the presence of a noun.
The fact that the French ‘ce’ selects both the singular and the plural of the copular ‘be’
subsumes that its nature raises ambiguity. It then looks like the French collective subject or
the English collective nouns. Yet, in the cases just mentioned, the explanation is issued from
the speaker’s intentions what is not the case of ‘ce’. We can wonder what is the nature of the
French ‘ce’. If, for example, the categorisation of ‘le, la, les’ in terms of articles and pronouns
is attributed to their occurrence before a noun or after a verb, we cannot follow that path to
account for ‘ce’. Accordingly, a purely diachronic study of ‘ce’ in French is demanding
because basing the explanation of the choice between ‘ce sont’and ‘c’est’ in front of the plural
form of the verb on metalanguage does not make things explicit. A purely linguistic analysis
of that issue will break the stone and shed light on a topic that remains uncovered for a long
time and taken for granted. To conclude this, I can assume that the French ‘ce’ might have
some grammatical features that are related to collective nouns. However, in English, the
agreement is realised as shown in the following examples.
(10)
a-The clergy/committee/government appoint/s Mr Nkara Doctor of Theology.
b-90 kilos is not heavy to lift.
c-Four hours is not too much for a lovely meeting.
d- The first two successful students have been granted scholarship.

It results from these examples that the choice between the singular and plural form is a matter
of interpretation of the NP, whether we consider it as a group or a unit: hence, the singular
preference or we consider its contents, hence the plurality. This remark is worthy for the
English NPs in (10a), but irrelevant for (10b,10c) where the ‘kilos’ and the ‘hours’ are taken
as a ‘size, amount’.

Wolof
Lekk na ‘he/she eats’
Lekk nañu ‘they eat’
Rafetul ‘He/she is not good-looking’
Rafetuñu ‘They are not beautiful’

There are two general observations at issue. The first observation to make from the above
examples concerns the fact that the agreement involves the subject and the predicate. In this
respect, Bobaljik (2006:3) writes, “The finite verb agrees with the highest accessible NP in its
domain”. To this effect, the NP that is the goal within the agreement domain is considered
opaque. Putting things quite slightly different, the NP is taken as a structure that bears only
one feature capable of being spread over the predicate that immediately follows. This is a pure
illustration of the influence of the form of the NP over subject-verb agreement.
The last observation concerns the fact that the goal in agreement domain is unstable.
In fact, the NP that is the goal is analysed in keeping careful attention to the different words
that are in that NP structure. In this respect, this NP structure looks syntactically ambiguous to
the extent that basing its interpretation upon the head noun can lead to a different sense. The
other fact that typifies these kinds of nouns is their flexibility, that is to say, their possibility to
take both singular and plural markers. Consequently, this raises a number of uncertainties in
the interpretation of these nouns. This kind of issue is very troublesome concerning language
learning and teaching. If we consider the grammar of languages as normative by nature, it will
be hard to cope with this. In fact, when we talk about exceptions, they are generally external
to the words given in a context. Here, the words stand as their own exceptions. We are then in
a case of a semi-default rule, there is no short cut condition admitting or refuting something.
These instances highlight the drawbacks of analyses that preclude interface for the
explanation of some language facts. To this effect, language analysis is like a labyrinth where
many things co-work for the better understanding of language faculty.
In conclusion, this kind of goal shift in agreement shows the limit of the influence of
the form of the NP over the determination of the source of the spreading of the agreement
aspects. This subsumes that the meaning of the words that make up the NP are determinant
for deciding on words that are going govern and trigger agreement between the subject and
the predicate. In broad terms, it comes out that either the form or the content of the words that
make up an NP taken alone cannot meet explanatory adequacy that is demanding in language
study. Equally interesting is the fact that neither the form nor the content is at work to
determine agreement in language. This issue is to be developed in the following section.

2- Nullity and Agreement blockage

I have to set forth the following working hypothesis as the starting point of my agreement
nullity and blockade:
(11) Agreement is, to some extent, nothing but the reflection of the male chauvinism in the
world.
Language, as being a reflection of mind, pans out the way to the elucidation of the opposite
between male and female sexes. Much in the language concern can be explained in taking into
account that permanent contrast. For, in a purely analytic theorem, nothing can account for
this matter. It is worth stating that this sex contrast is mainly highlighted in languages that
have gender. Consider the following:
(12)
a- L’homme et la femme sont créés par Dieu.
the man.Masc.Sg and the woman.Fem.Sg are created. PL. Masc by God
‘man and woman are created by God’

b- J’ai vu ton père et ta mère, ils sont en bonne santé.

I have seen your father. Masc.Sg and mother Fem.Sg, they PRN.PL. Masc are well
‘I saw your parents, they are well.’

c- Les assiettes, les lits, les lampes que j’ai achetés sont beaux.
The plates.Fem.Pl the beds Masc.Pl. the lamps Fem.Pl that I have bought. are nice Masc.Pl
‘The plates, the beds, and the lamps I have bought are nice’

d- un/*une porte- parole ‘a spokesman’

a.masc.sg/*a.fem.sg carry fem.sg speech
- *un/une porte- fenêtre ‘a French window’
*a.masc.sg/a.fem.sg carry fem.sg
- un/*une porte- clé ‘a key ring’
a.masc.sg/*a.fem.sg carry fem.sg
- *un/une porte- monnaie ‘a purse’
*a.masc.sg/a. fem.sg carry fem.sg
- un/une casse- tête ‘brainteaser’
*a.masc.sg/a. fem.sg break head
- le.masc.sg/*la fem.sg centre- ville ‘city center’
The centre town
- un/*une timbre- quittance ‘a receipt stamp’
a.masc.sg/a. fem.sg stamp receipt
- *un/une pause- café ‘coffee break’
a.masc.sg/a. fem.sg break coffee

e- I saw a child outside. He looks faint.

The examples in (12a, 12b, and 12c) illustrate that the agreement between the adjectives and
the nouns they modify is not analytic, but culturally based. That is to say, if one only
concentrates on the words that are involved in this agreement construal, one will be unable to
properly account for that instance of agreement. Accordingly, this agreement has a deep and
strong connection with the way language speakers see the world. In this respect, one has to
know that, in French, for example, when it happens that two nouns with different genders are
contrasted, the agreement has to follow the male gender due to the phallocratic vision of the
world. This vision is certainly the reflection of the creation of the world as man was created
before woman and, accordingly, he is taken as a superior creature. In English, for instance,
when referring to a person whose gender people ignore, the general tendency is to use male
indexes. Elizabeth Grace Winkler (2007:238) reports that:
 “In 1850, an Act of Parliament was passed in Britain which made he the only legal
form of third person singular generic. The use of generic ‘he’ is exclusionary, and it
does have a subtle impact on the culture.”
It is transparent from Winkler’s statement that the choice of the generic ‘he’ is
strongly based on culture, but not on any grammar rudiments. As a matter of fact, it has no
reference to the grammar of the English language. There is an up-to-date constant will to use a
plural marker ‘they/their’ instead of the generic ‘he’. In this respect, Winkler (2007: 238)
asserts that “In US English, in informal speech and sometimes even in writing, the use of they
is becoming more common as a replacement for generic he.” Once again, it appears that this
choice for ‘they’ in case of a singular issue is culturally based, but not grammatically. It might
be claimed that this choice tends to promote neutrality in language speech to conform to the
social balance that should be between male and female.
This linguistic issue points out a case of gender agreement nullity. In other words, we
are in front of the nullity of one of the parameters that lead to the agreement in a language.
This nullity has no effect on the agreed item as do empty categories and floating tone in
syntax and phonology respectively.
Moreover, the French language has a complex reality concerning the nullity in
agreement case. The examples in (12d) are illustrious and illustrative. We have female words
that select either a male indefinite article or a female indefinite article. Truly speaking, the
reason underpinning that choice is not analogical to the rudiments of the analytic approach of
the language, but it raises an interesting issue on the way the language functions. This has
long been defended by anomalists during the Greek era as language was taken as an irregular
pattern. If only this choice is asked to a non French native speaker who has not that French
background, it is doubtless that he/she is going to follow the language grammar by respecting
gender agreement. For, it is hard to elaborate a logical grammatical norm that can account for
this kind of matters.

Conclusion
It results from our analysis that either the form or the content of the word can explain
agreement account on a purely theoretical linguistic ground. Yet, this theoretical account of
agreement is, to some extent, inadequate in some context that highlights male chauvinism
embedded in language. That is to say, in addition to syntactic and semantic accounts of
agreement, some aspects of agreement are a purely reflection of the way people consider the
world through gender scale. To quote Winkler (2007:235) ‘Language is a social construction
and reflects our attitudes […] about the world around us-or reflects the way previous
generation saw the world’. In this respect, there are some anthropological, cultural clues that
are embedded in language and naturally involved in the agreement process. Moreover, this
paper has demonstrated that agreement can be considered as a parameter of variation cross
linguistically. Therefore, it is important to claim that agreement confirms the natural
connection that exists between language and culture.

References
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2006. “Where’s φ? Agreement as post-syntactic operation.” In Van
Koppen et al (eds). Special Issue of Leiden Papers in Linguistics3.20, pp.1-23.
Chomsky, Noam.1998. ‘Minimalism Enquiry: the Framework’ MIT Occasional Paper in
linguistics N°15.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. ‘Beyond Explanatory Adequacy’ unpublished manuscript MIT.
Corbett, Greville G. 2003. Agreement: terms and boundaries. In The Role of Agreement in
Natural languages: TLS 5 Proceedings in Texas linguistics Forum 5.
Crystal, David .1971. Linguistics. England: Penguin Books. (B.U)
Le Goffic, P. 1993. Grammaire de la phrase française. Paris :Hachette éducation HU ‘langue
française’.
Ndongo Ibara, Yvon Pierre. 2009. A Comparative Study of Complements in Embosi and
English. Université Marien Ngouabi, Thèse de doctorat unique.
Ngamountsika, Édouard. 2007. « Le français parlé au Congo : étude morphosyntaxique »,
Doctorat unique, Université Marien Ngouabi, FLSH, Brazzaville.
Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press and CSLI Publications.
Teich, E. ? Types of syntagmatic grammatical relations and their representation.
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalism Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge:
CUP.
Von Wartburg W. and P. Zumthor. 1958. Précis de syntaxe du français contemporain. Berne,
A. Francke.
Winkler, Elizabeth Grace. 2007. Understanding Language, London: Continum.